SUNIL PANDEY,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by the order of first-appeal dated 23.10.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Kolkata [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 25.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-1(2), Indore [“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

assessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2017-18 u/s 139

declaring a total income of Rs. 4,91,100/-. The case of assessee was selected

for scrutiny for the issue of “Large Cash Deposits in Bank Account(s) during

the year”. The AO issued notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) to assessee. During

proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee deposited a total sum of Rs.

17,31,500/- in bank a/cs during the demonetization period. Ultimately, the

AO completed assessment after making an addition of Rs. 14,23,000/- on

account of unexplained deposits in bank a/c and thereby assessing total

income at Rs. 19,14,100/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-

appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any relief. Now, the assessee has come

in next appeal before us.

considered the orders of lower authorities.

agent and engaged in the business of booking tickets for constituents. The

assessee filed his return declaring presumptive income u/s 44AD from

business, which the AO has accepted and assessed without any variation.

That the source of deposits in bank a/c was mainly the business activity of

assessee considered for section 44AD.

assessee could not make representation before AO since he is engaged in smaller level of business and does not have adequate knowledge of tax

procedures and also does not have benefit of suitable consultation due to

limited sources. Further, during appellate proceeding before CIT(A), the

assessee filed certain details as is clearly acknowledged by Ld. CIT(A) in final

para of impugned order, reading as under:

“During the appellate proceedings, the appellant did not respond to hearing notices. Instead, on 14.11.2023 submitted some copies of PAN cards and some excel sheets detailing therein some transactions in the name of different persons. But in the absence of clarification or explanation as to what exactly the said excel sheets denote or what significance the PAN cards have, it was not possible to comprehend the nature of submission. Subsequent queries on this issue were repeatedly ignored. In the absence of any conclusive argument or concrete evidence countering the action of the AO, the addition of Rs. 14,23,000/- is confirmed and this ground of appeal dismissed.” Ld. AR, however, admitted that the assessee could not make an effective

representation before Ld. CIT(A) for the very same reason of not having

benefit of suitable consultation.

and documents and ready to make an effective representation before Ld. AO.

Ld. AR prayed that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be given

to assessee by way of restoring this matter at the level of Ld. AO for a de

novo adjudication. He acknowledged that the assessee shall definitely make

a proper and effective representation before Ld. AO.

restoration, submitted that the bench should give appropriate directions to

ensure strict compliance by assessee.

of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be

caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of Ld. AO, we

remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for adjudication afresh, at the

risk and responsibility of assessee. The Ld. AO shall give necessary

opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order

uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain

vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by Ld. AO

without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld. AO shall

be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced in open court on 24/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore िदनांक/Dated : 24/04/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 4 of 4